Spidey, on Apr 27 2007, 07:10 PM, said:
Well, we have certainly seen fantastic benefits on NOT carrying a legal permit gun on campus, haven't we?
Sure we have. In such places where such permits aren't allowed, dozens of people aren't killed daily by vigilantes.
You assume all 20 will be packing. You assume the closest one will be packing. It doesn't work that way.
I assumed no such thing; I only offered it as a possibility
This is just getting rediculous. Anyone who has tried shoot clay with a shotgun will tell you it isn't easy to do.
People don't run as fast as clay pigeons fly. They're also much bigger than clay pigeons and instead of running in an arc across a field, they're running away from the shooter, so their left/right deviation isn't going to be as much.
Handguns are even harder to track a moving target simply because of their limited sight radius compared to any long gun.
You aim your arm at the target and pull the trigger.
Then there's shooting proficiency. Cho was no expert assassin.
You're making another assumption. Please back up your statement. He killed 32 people in very little time.
In fact, there have been no expert assissins shooting committing acts like this in US history. All of them were derranged retards with little or no shooting experience.
The video of the Columbine shooters would disagree with you there.
Are you saying you prefer to just stand still and not bother to run for cover?
Where did I say any such thing?
Once a round is fired, it can NOT change direction in mid air. That is what I said, and you know it.
Um, it doesn't need to. If it was fired in the right direction. The gunman can also pull the trigger a second time.
People, however can duck, run, turn, roll, hide, etc.
Duck - while head shots are the most lethal, many such attacks are torso shots; it's a bigger target. Ducking doesn't help.
Run - great, but unless you are close to something to hide behind, a bullet moves a lot faster than a person.
Turn - that won't really help against a second shot.
Roll - I don't think dropping to the ground is the best defence. These people aren't on fire; they're being fired at
Hide - doesn't really help unless you're right near the thing to hide behind. And nothing is stopping the gunman from following you or shooting through the thing you're hiding behind.
Hello? Why do you think it is called CONCEALED CARRY?!?! No one can know if a person is armed.
Hello? If he knows that there are people in his community who are licensed to concealed carry, he'll assume that they're among his targets and he'll begin from a position of concealment himself.
On top of that, in order to take a position of cover, it requires him to stay there, limiting his number of targets versus roaming around a dorm or building.
Can't he duck, run, turn, roll and hide? Can't he use a desk or chair as a shield? He could have even fired right from the doorway, extending only his arm into the room!
His actions blatantly show what was on his mind; to hunt down and kill as many students and teacher he could find.
You're assuming that this is all that was on his mind.
He can't do that if he is looking for cover.
He knew that the police could be there at any moment.
Again, it's not an assumption. It is a fact that if a CC holder has misused his privilages of carrying, his gun toting days are over.
Sure it's an assumption. It's one thing to know a thing and it's another to actually practice it daily. How many cops do you see speeding on the highway, breaking the law? And even if his license is taken away, what would stop him from carrying concealed anyway? The lead singer for Blues Traveler was just caught with a bunch of hidden weapons in his car. Not having a license didn't stop him.
So tell me, how many law-abiding CC holders have gone on a killing rampage lately? NONE.
How many left-handed mulato touch-typists have become astronauts lately? NONE. That doesn't mean we couldn't get one tomorrow. You're assuming that past experience will bear out in the future. It doesn't work that way.
Um, Dick doesn't have a Concealed carry permit.
Read your statement again. You didn't specify concealed permit carriers. You said law-abiding gun owners.
Dick wasn't taking a shot at a killer.
Read your statement again. You didn't specify taking a shot at a killer. Although you specified handguns (can shotgun rules be so different?), you said "It's one of the most basic rules of handgun ownership to NEVER take a shot unless the target is properly aquired, and that the shooter knows of what or who is behind that target."
You just said "target"; you didn't specify "killer". Whether or not he was shooting at quail or a killer, wouldn't the rule apply? Are there no rules about aquiring targets when quails are the subject? Do we not have to worry about what's behind the quail when we're shooting?
We don't know the facts. You're making an assumption.
Again, you're accusing me of doing the very thing that you're doing.
And you don't listen. Anyone who carries HAS to have KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS.
No; anyone who carries just has a license. What if the instructor was a schlub? You're making assumptions.
The rest of you statements are just rediculous. Utterly rediculous.
Logic is never ridiculous.
If they can't take a shot, they won't. Why? Because they don't want it on their conscience of shooting an innocent bystandard.
Pat Tillman. I rest my case.